millworkman
eXtreme
Actually, just looked it up. In Alabama and TN and a bunch of other states, it is completely ok to marry your first cousin. Good thing I am from Mich where it is illegal to marry them.
POTAWIE said:Inbreeding works well with plants but not so well in the animal kingdom
You don't need to get a DNA test to know that, now do you? you already said the ones they tested (they haven't tested them all) showed both Chinense and Frutescens genes. how did that happen without crossing?POTAWIE said:I don't really know how different all the varieties are, but they all appear to be chinense with some frutescens. Without complete DNA comparisons I think it would be impossible to say for sure if some were "crossed back and forth and than some" or if they just adapted, or spontaneously mutated, or just show signs of selective breeding.
That's why breeding messes with the genetic code. if it didn't, it wouldn't have had any of its effects.rds040800 said:Actually inbreeding in dogs does have some advantages, such as it somehow cancels out genetic defects in a certain line and it is also how alot of the "rare" colors of dogs come about like red Boston Terriers that are typically brindle or black.
I always thought it was anywhere in AppalachiaSilver_Surfer said:Didn't you mean to say Tennessee.
talas said:So three types where established..Bhut,Dorset,Morich
AlabamaJack said:Is that something like being from Arkansas in the USA?
Omri said:You don't need to get a DNA test to know that, now do you? you already said the ones they tested (they haven't tested them all) showed both Chinense and Frutescens genes. how did that happen without crossing?
Just saying they're in differet areas, open polinated, grown with different chiles near by and show different qualities. all those support the fact they're not the same chile. not saying they're not close relatives or even that at some point they were the same chile, you can't really know that. all I'm saying is it's ridiculous to think that after so much time, it's possible for all to be the same. they're similar no doubt, but not the same.POTAWIE said:If they all showed chinense and frutescens then I'd think that would make them more the same than different. Of course they were crossed, almost all peppers were crossed somewhere, but these have been stabilized over many years
POTAWIE said:I still say they are all different variations of the same pepper
Omri said:Just saying they're in differet areas, open polinated, grown with different chiles near by and show different qualities. all those support the fact they're not the same chile. not saying they're not close relatives or even that at some point they were the same chile, you can't really know that. all I'm saying is it's ridiculous to think that after so much time, it's possible for all to be the same. they're similar no doubt, but not the same.
BTW you can't possibly know if they all share the Frutescens genes, as not all were tested.
Usually new genes have to be introduced to be considered a new varietyMrArboc said:Most of the chiles we grow are variations of only five species. Where do we draw the line between one cultivar and the next? How different do they have to be to deserve/require it's own name? I don't know.
POTAWIE said:Usually new genes have to be introduced to be considered a new variety